Over the weekend 3 topics were posted, all about issues that no one cares about aside from a few propagandists in DC/LA/NY.
Meanwhile, not ONE word about the regressive Supreme court which may destroy equality for gays with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Meanwhile, not ONE word about the regressive Supreme court which may destroy equality for gays with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.”
Don’t fret. Stephen will express his whole-hog support 303 Creative LLC in good time.
posted by Agee on
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, extended anti-discrimination law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. I’m hoping that they will now protect the freedom of business owners not to be forced by the state to express messages that violate their religious beliefs.
I realize that for progressives such as Tom and Kosh, not enabling the state to drive out of business those who refuse to express pro-gay-marriage sentiments is a nightmare scenario. To those of us who support liberty for gays and also those who have traditional conservative religious beliefs, it is not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Agee, the critical issue that you, Stephen and others supporting religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws persistently fail/refuse to address is religious exemption should apply to all protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex, ethnicity/national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity) or should apply only to sexual orientation and gender identity.
To ask the question in terms applicable to a “website designer who creates original, online content consistent with his/her faith“, should the Court grant religious exemption for Christian website designers who hold sincerely held religious beliefs objecting to (a) interracial marriage, (b) divorce, (c) remarriage after divorce and so on, or should the Court limit religious exemption to sincerely held religious beliefs objection to same-sex marrage?
posted by Tom Jefferson on
Yes, they should.
posted by Agee on
While this discussion should probably be under the new item about this case, I can answer Tom that yes, no one should be forced by the state to express views that violate their religious convictions, even if the majority finds those views unacceptable. If a website maker doesn’t want to design a website celebrating an interracial marriage, I believe that is wrong but it is his or her right not to be coerced into such expression. The ACLU and liberals, once upon a time, got this — now they believe ideological conformism must be imposed by using state power to punish those with unacceptable beliefs.
6 Comments for “What Happens to Heretics”
posted by Kosh III on
Over the weekend 3 topics were posted, all about issues that no one cares about aside from a few propagandists in DC/LA/NY.
Meanwhile, not ONE word about the regressive Supreme court which may destroy equality for gays with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Meanwhile, not ONE word about the regressive Supreme court which may destroy equality for gays with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.”
Don’t fret. Stephen will express his whole-hog support 303 Creative LLC in good time.
posted by Agee on
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, extended anti-discrimination law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. I’m hoping that they will now protect the freedom of business owners not to be forced by the state to express messages that violate their religious beliefs.
I realize that for progressives such as Tom and Kosh, not enabling the state to drive out of business those who refuse to express pro-gay-marriage sentiments is a nightmare scenario. To those of us who support liberty for gays and also those who have traditional conservative religious beliefs, it is not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Agee, the critical issue that you, Stephen and others supporting religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws persistently fail/refuse to address is religious exemption should apply to all protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex, ethnicity/national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity) or should apply only to sexual orientation and gender identity.
To ask the question in terms applicable to a “website designer who creates original, online content consistent with his/her faith“, should the Court grant religious exemption for Christian website designers who hold sincerely held religious beliefs objecting to (a) interracial marriage, (b) divorce, (c) remarriage after divorce and so on, or should the Court limit religious exemption to sincerely held religious beliefs objection to same-sex marrage?
posted by Tom Jefferson on
Yes, they should.
posted by Agee on
While this discussion should probably be under the new item about this case, I can answer Tom that yes, no one should be forced by the state to express views that violate their religious convictions, even if the majority finds those views unacceptable. If a website maker doesn’t want to design a website celebrating an interracial marriage, I believe that is wrong but it is his or her right not to be coerced into such expression. The ACLU and liberals, once upon a time, got this — now they believe ideological conformism must be imposed by using state power to punish those with unacceptable beliefs.